Washington The deepening civil war in Iraq forced
Barack Obama
to send in United States soldiers to protect its embassy in Baghdad, a move almost unthinkable for a president determined to avoid being caught up in bloody Middle East conflicts.

The President said last month it was “time to turn the page on a decade in which so much of our foreign policy was focused on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq".

On Monday, Mr Obama used his commander-in-chief “war powers" to announce the deployment of 275 troops after Secretary of State
John Kerry
flagged the US may engage with long-time foe Iran to fix the deteriorating ­crisis in neighbouring Iraq.

Despite the olive branch being extended by America’s top diplomat, foreign policy analysts said there appeared to be mixed messages ­coming from different arms of the US government.

A Pentagon spokesman, Admiral John Kirby, bluntly responded to Mr Kerry’s comments, saying: “There is absolutely no intention and no plan to co-ordinate military activities between the United States and Iran."

Any co-operation between the US and Iran is likely to be purely diplomatic, which would still be a historic possibility for two nations who have barely spoken for decades as Iran pursued nuclear capabilities.

“We’re open to discussions if there’s something constructive that can be contributed by Iran, if Iran is prepared to do something that is going to respect the integrity and sovereignty of Iraq and the ability of the government to reform," Mr Kerry said in an online television interview.

expanding territorial gains

Related Quotes

Company Profile

After Islamic jihadists shocked the international community last week by storming over the Syrian border and seizing control of Iraq’s second largest city, Mosul, fighting between Sunni insurgents, Shiite forces loyal to the government and Kurds persisted into a second week around northern parts of the country.

Blood-letting continued on Monday as the militant group Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and its Sunni supporters appeared to consolidate their positions and expand their territorial gains in the country’s north-west.

ISIS took control of Tal Afar, a mainly ethnic Turkmen town with a large Shia population. Baghdad is not under direct threat at this stage, with fighting most intense about 100 kilometres north of the Iraqi capital.

Almost three years after the US exited Iraq after a bloody eight-year battle that cost 4500 American lives, Mr Obama informed Congress he had ­re-assigned troops in Iraq.

“This force is deploying for the ­purpose of protecting US citizens and property, if necessary, and is equipped for combat," Mr Obama said in a letter to House speaker John Boehner on Monday evening in Washington.

“This force will remain in Iraq until the security situation becomes such that it is no longer needed."

Mr Obama has previously said no US troops will be put on the ground to fight in Iraq and he has pressured Iraqi Prime Minister
Nouri al-Maliki
, a Shiite, to find common ground between moderate sections of the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions.

The White House has said it is weighing up a range of assistance options, including air strikes. The US shifted an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf over the weekend.

Mr Obama reluctantly inherited the conflict in Iraq from ­predecessor George W Bush, who tried to bring democratic rule to the ­country after toppling dictator Saddam Hussein.

The Democrat President has been criticised by some defence hawks for helping fuel the latest uprising by exiting Iraq too hastily in 2011.

Some Republicans are calling for a rethink on the planned exit later this year of most of the 32,000 troops from Afghanistan. Only 9800 US soldiers will remain until 2016.

Mr Kerry refuted the claims about premature withdrawal from Iraq. “Because whatever residual force was discussed to be left in Iraq would have been . . . non-combat," Mr Kerry said.

“It would have been not involved in combat. So it was not a combatant force that was being contemplated. It was train, advise, assist, so forth."